from the whac-whac-whac-a-mole dept

We've been covering the attempts by Dutch anti-piracy operator BREIN to play a legal game of whac-a-mole to block The Pirate Bay by forcing ISPs to block access, then blocking proxies that provide access, and now blocking anyone from even talking about ways to get to The Pirate Bay. Bizarrely, a court in The Hague has agreed, and has come out in favor of blocking the Dutch Pirate Party from even discussing some of this stuff:

The Court specifically ruled that the Party’s reverse proxy has to remain offline. It was further ordered that Pirate Bay domains and IP-addresses have to be filtered from the Pirate Party’s generic proxy. In addition the Pirate Party can’t link to other websites that allow the public to bypass the blockade. These orders are only valid when paired with an encouragement to circumvent.

Basically, telling people how to get around a block, even if it's linking to a general proxy (not a specific one) is now barred in the Netherlands. The fact that the court now is telling proxies how they can work is a huge overreach. That seems like a pretty blatant restriction on free speech. The thing is, do the folks at BREIN actually think this charade is effective? All it seems to be doing is enraging tons of people in the Netherlands, and doing absolutely nothing to stop them from going to The Pirate Bay.

from the good-news dept

We just wrote about the bizarre process in the Netherlands, where the Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN was able to get a court injunction to order the Dutch Pirate Party to stop hosting a proxy service that redirected people to The Pirate Bay, and then tried to get the Party in trouble for merely pointing people to links of other proxies that could take them to The Pirate Bay. All of this went way beyond the initial order barring access to The Pirate Bay and (more importantly) was done without letting the Dutch Pirate Party have its side heard by the court. There was an interesting discussion in our comments, in which one individual insisted that completely changing the nature of the original injunction was no big deal, and there was simply no reason for the Pirate Party to be heard from, since there was no adversarial issue to adjudicate. That, of course, is ridiculous -- because a political party was being censored, way outside the bounds of the original injunction.

Thankfully, a court in The Hague seems to be realizing that BREIN keeps changing the rules after the fact. It has said that BREIN can't demand that the Dutch Pirate Party take down a general proxy -- as opposed to the specific reverse proxy that only went to TPB. The more general proxy has to be allowed. Next week, the court will explore more fully if the specific proxy really should have been taken down as well. It's good to see the court recognizing that just because BREIN wants to (impossibly) block all access to TPB, it doesn't get to play whac-a-mole by continually changing what the ruling actually said.

from the judicial-miscarriage dept

Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting, briefly, Tim Kuik, the head of BREIN, the Dutch anti-piracy group that has been fighting against file sharing on a variety of fronts. We had an enjoyable conversation (as part of a larger discussion) in which he insisted that he and BREIN recognized the future opportunities of the digital market, and that BREIN was not interested in trying to put the genie back in the bottle -- in response to my suggestion that too many in the industry were trying to do exactly that. That may be true, but it's difficult to see how that's the case when immediately after this we hear of stories about BREIN going to court to shut down a proxy by the Dutch Pirate Party to point people to The Pirate Bay -- a site that BREIN has forced ISPs to block.

Of course, blocking sites on the web is impossible, and the silly continued whac-a-mole against proxies seems like a huge waste of time and resources that could have been put towards helping to develop compelling new business models. But, a much bigger concern is the process by which this latest proxy was shut down. Or, rather, I should note it's not so much the process, but the lack of due process. That is, a court ordered the proxy to be taken down without allowing the Dutch Pirate Party to testify on its own behalf:

The Pirate Party was not heard in the matter (ex parte) and according to board member “blauwbaard” the judge ignored their requests to be heard.

“The judge has decided to ignore our express and valid request to have the injunction either denied flat-out, or to at least be heard in the matter before a decision was made,” blauwbaard states in a response.

“This decision is even more strange because BREIN was allowed to bring over 20 pages of arguments to convince the judge to stretch a quaint rule of IP-law, meant to block the sudden appearance of mass quantities of counterfeited goods, far enough to be applied to the website of a political party.”

A court ordering a website taken down without allowing the site itself to speak on its behalf? That seems pretty extreme. A proxy is simply a redirect in a case like this. It's something just about anyone can do, and chasing after each and every proxy -- and then not allowing them to speak for themselves in court, seems like a perfect example of trying to put the genie back in the bottle, no matter how much BREIN insists that's not their goal.

And, unfortunately, the story gets even worse, the more it moves forward. The Dutch Pirate Party replaced their proxy with a page that
linked to other proxies as well as an explanation of their position. This seems like a classic free speech situation. Except... BREIN claimed that even those links to other proxies violated the injunction, and have demanded the party take them down as well. The Pirate Party appears to be getting ready to fight this, noting that BREIN keeps trying to rewrite the specifics of the court's order (i.e., trying to stuff that genie back into the bottle) every time a different website shows how ridiculous it is to ban internet access to a website.

from the standing-its-ground dept

The Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is somewhat famous for its overreaching efforts. While it succeeded in getting ISPs to block The Pirate Bay's website, it's been going after a bunch of proxy sites that have helped people get around the block. Its latest move may run into some difficulty however. The Dutch Pirate Party has its own proxy offering, and BREIN is demanding they turn it off. The Pirate Party, however, is standing its ground. As TorrentFreak reports:

Last week the local Pirate Party also received a letter from BREIN, demanding the shutdown of their Pirate Bay proxy site hosted at tpb.piratenpartij.nl. However, unlike the site owners that were previously contacted by the group, the Pirate Party is not caving in. They would rather fight the case in court.

Today the Party informed BREIN that the proxy site will stay online. To show that The Pirate Bay can be a useful communication tool the Pirate Party sent the letter through a torrent file, hosted on the BitTorrent site at the center of the dispute.

“A private lobbying organization should not be allowed to be the censor of the Dutch internet. We were also amazed to find an ex-parte decision attached, threatening Dutch minors with €1000 per day fines for operating their proxy. If we would have yielded, their trick would immediately be played out against numerous other private citizens.”

The larger point in all of this, of course, is just how completely and utterly useless BREIN's game of whac-a-mole is. There are so many proxy sites out there, and many are used for perfectly legitimate reasons. Trying to block every single one of them is a fool's errand. Those who want to go to TPB will figure out ways to get there.

from the everyone-seize-domains-now dept

Now that the US government appears to be endorsing the idea of simply seizing domain names without notice to the proprietors of those domains, it appears that others are doing the same as well. TorrentFreak reports that the Dutch anti-piracy group, BREIN, with help from the MPAA, has been able to get 29 different domain names -- all hosted in the US -- to point to BREIN's homepage instead. The owners of those domains were apparently given no notice and no recourse. It sounds like most of the sites did not host any content but linked to potentially infringing content.

Whether or not you believe that simply linking to potentially infringing content should be against the law, we're seeing yet another example of the simple lack of due process and how this may impact other areas. If BREIN can get US domains shut down, what's to stop other countries from doing the same thing? China doesn't like reporting by an American site about China? What's to stop it from trying to "seize" that domain? Even if we grant the idea that many of these domains were engaged in or encouraging unauthorized copying of works covered by copyright, why should BREIN and the MPAA simply get to shut them down without any sort of trial?

from the hush-up-now dept

Earlier this year, we noted that the Dutch Usenet community FTD was suing BREIN, the local "anti-piracy" group, for suggesting that FTD was a criminal operation. As the case moves forward, FTD is pointing out that as a Usenet group, all that it enables is discussions and doesn't see how discussions -- even if about file sharing -- should be infringing themselves. In response, BREIN still insists that a Usenet provider can, in fact, be a criminal organization, and asked the court to fine FTD $70,000 per day if it doesn't get people to stop talking about file sharing. But, no, copyright doesn't conflict with free speech at all... right?

from the spectrial-indeed dept

You may remember, back in July, that a Dutch court made an odd ruling against The Pirate Bay at the behest of BREIN, the local anti-piracy group. Now, there was a lot of things odd about the case. BREIN has always been quite aggressive in demanding that sites be blocked or that ISPs be forced to block sites, but this case went really far. BREIN was able to bring the case without even letting any of the four defendants (the same four who were on trial in Sweden) know about the case. However, BREIN told the court that the defendants were fairly summoned, despite no evidence that was true at all. BREIN also claimed that The Pirate Bay had launched a DDoS attack on BREIN's website, and seemed so close to the court that when the defendants themselves asked the court for the very ruling made against them, the court told them that they could only get the copy directly from BREIN.

Of course, after all this happened, a second problem cropped up. Swedish authorities did an investigation and came to the conclusion -- as the four defendants had said all along -- that those four guys did not actually own The Pirate Bay. Instead, it was a company called Reservella, information that came out to the public after the attempt by GGF to buy The Pirate Bay (which has since collapsed).

BREIN wasted little time in adding Reservella to its lawsuits... but then did something strange. It came up with a credit report that purports to prove that one of the four defendants, Fredrik Neij, is the CEO and a director of Reservella. However, there were some oddities in that credit report, and Peter Sunde (one of the other defendants, better known as brokep) began investigating and has rather detailed evidence that the entire credit report is a fake. Almost none of the information on the report checks out, and the companies listed -- including Experian, who supposedly supplied the credit report, claim that they have no record of this particular credit report at all.

Sunde is now filing criminal charges against BREIN and its boss Tim Kuik, claiming that they forged a document and used it for fraud (trying to get money out of these four defendants). As Sunde notes, such charges seem to be far more serious than inducing copyright infringement. The evidence that Sunde lays out certainly looks convincing that the document is fake, but what's still not clear is how BREIN got the document, and whether it was responsible for creating the document, or if it was merely convinced that the fake document was real from someone else.

Still, it doesn't look good for BREIN to be caught using what appear to be faked documents in its lawsuit.

from the if-you-don't-pay-for-it... dept

Anti-piracy groups often have a way with massively stretching the truth when it comes to copyright law and anyone they dislike. The Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN apparently put out a wholly misleading article entitled: "You do not pay for it, it's unlawful." This line was taken from MPAA propaganda that has been sent around to public schools -- but, of course, it is wrong. There are tons of things that you don't pay for that are perfect lawful. To make matters worse, the article then accused a Dutch Usenet community called FTD of being "criminal." Knowing that it is not criminal, the group is now suing BREIN for falsely smearing its image by saying that it is criminal and for falsely portraying copyright law in the Netherlands.